For those of you who closely follow the polls what kind of bounce did Romney get from the debate? What does that do to his chances of winning the general election?

King_Chief_Fan

10-05-2012, 11:27 AM

For those of you who closely follow the polls what kind of bounce did Romney get from the debate? What does that do to his chances of winning the general election?

too early say I guess...haven't seen bounce data yet.

It is way to early to declare win after one round

BigMeatballBillay

10-05-2012, 11:27 AM

None according the Gallup tracking poll as of yesterday

thecoffeeguy

10-05-2012, 11:50 AM

Read an article today that Romney got a boost in Florida, Ohio and Virginia. Either leading or tied with Obama. I'll find the article and link it.

Ya, he did get a bounce after trouncing Obama Wednesday night.

alpha_omega

10-05-2012, 11:57 AM

For those of you who closely follow the polls what kind of bounce did Romney get from the debate? What does that do to his chances of winning the general election?

The data will be out next week Pip.

alnorth

10-05-2012, 12:00 PM

This is far, far, far too early to say. This weekend's numbers may also be too early, you need to wait till Monday or Tuesday.

Based on history though, Romney's probably not going to get much of a bounce. Even if you factor in that Romney got one of the clearest "won the debate" flash polls in a while, there is a very weak correlation between perception of who won the debate, and actual change in the poll results.

We've had many elections where the candidate perceived to have lost a debate actually improved in the polls the following week.

alnorth

10-05-2012, 12:01 PM

Read an article today that Romney got a boost in Florida, Ohio and Virginia. Either leading or tied with Obama. I'll find the article and link it.

Ya, he did get a bounce after trouncing Obama Wednesday night.

No one has a post-debate poll, and "We Ask America" + Rasmussen aren't very credible polling companies.

thecoffeeguy

10-05-2012, 12:03 PM

No one has a post-debate poll, and "We Ask America" + Rasmussen aren't very credible polling companies.

Says who? you?

alnorth

10-05-2012, 12:08 PM

Says who? you?

We Ask America is a joke. They are brand-new in 2012 so no history, they have a pro-GOP house effect that exceeds even Rasmussen, and their performance in predicting the Scott Walker recall election was pathetic.

Rasmussen used to be good, but they were utterly pathetic in 2010, primarily because they don't poll cell phones and many more people have cut their land line cord today than 4 years ago. Cell phone-only users tend to skew Democrat. Rasmussen is, and will continue to be, a pathetic joke until they start calling cell phones.

This isn't uninformed opinion, the fact that these two pollsters suck is based on data.

Great Expectations

10-05-2012, 12:29 PM

The data will be out next week Pip.

Thank you Miss Havisham

RINGLEADER

10-05-2012, 02:43 PM

None according the Gallup tracking poll as of yesterday

Won't show up on Gallup for a week. Might show up on Rasmussen this weekend.

The state polling seems to be up though...Romney's now up in Florida, Virginia, and one point behind in Ohio. If that is shown to be the case by more than the two firms I've seen today then it is a major change...

mnchiefsguy

10-05-2012, 02:49 PM

Won't show up on Gallup for a week. Might show up on Rasmussen this weekend.

The state polling seems to be up though...Romney's now up in Florida, Virginia, and one point behind in Ohio. If that is shown to be the case by more than the two firms I've seen today then it is a major change...

Which two polls have seen that reflect that? I would be interested in seeing those numbers. Thanks!

whoman69

10-05-2012, 02:52 PM

We probably won't know until Tuesday. If its a bump of more than 2 points then it may be a trend instead of a bump.

KCTitus

10-05-2012, 03:38 PM

No one has a post-debate poll, and "We Ask America" + Rasmussen aren't very credible polling companies.

Rasmussen was #1 most accurate subsequent to the 2008 election...I'd say that lends some credibility.

chiefqueen

10-05-2012, 04:21 PM

Whatever bounce there is will be back to where it was on Tuesday or Wednesday of next week based on today's unemployment report.

The debate outcome may keep in Romney on Ohio TV 7 to 10 days longer (before the debate there were threads on Free Republic that Romney was probably going to "pull out" of Ohio towards the end of next week. If/When Romney pulls out of Ohio this election is OVER) but, based on today's jobless report I anticipate Obama regaining his pre-debate lead about the time of the second debate.

Taco John

10-05-2012, 08:16 PM

Prediction markets say Obama is still the favorite right now, but he lost serious ground. He went from being an 80% favorite to being only a 60%. One more performance like that, and the race will be 50/50.

RINGLEADER

10-07-2012, 11:57 PM

Whatever bounce there is will be back to where it was on Tuesday or Wednesday of next week based on today's unemployment report.

The debate outcome may keep in Romney on Ohio TV 7 to 10 days longer (before the debate there were threads on Free Republic that Romney was probably going to "pull out" of Ohio towards the end of next week. If/When Romney pulls out of Ohio this election is OVER) but, based on today's jobless report I anticipate Obama regaining his pre-debate lead about the time of the second debate.

You really think a 7.8% unemployment rate is going to win hearts and minds? The rate with the same employment participation as 2008 would be over 11% (but, thankfully, we have a lot more people on disability and unemployment so they're not counted).

Funny how 8 years ago the Dems were bemoaning Bush because the rate wasn't below 5%, but now being at 7.8% is just mutherfuggin' great news!

patteeu

10-08-2012, 09:10 AM

Romney won't get any bounce out of the debate. It's not a bounce when it's permanent.

#freighttrain

qabbaan

10-08-2012, 10:29 AM

I would expect that Romney should have gotten a fundraising bounce after that performance as well.

mlyonsd

10-08-2012, 10:40 AM

I predict our liberal brethren will soon be telling us polls don't matter.

The four national tracking polls as published on Sunday were largely unchanged from their Saturday releases. Mr. Romney maintained a 2-point lead in the Rasmussen Reports tracking poll, but President Obamaís lead held at 2 points in an online poll published by Ipsos and at 3 points in the Gallup tracking poll. In the RAND Corporationís online tracking poll, which lists its results to the decimal place, Mr. Obamaís lead declined incrementally, to 3.9 percentage points from 4.4 on Saturday.

My effort to do that is reflected in the chart below. Iíve compared the most recent reading in each poll to the average result that the poll showed in the period between the Democratic convention and the Denver debate. Iíve also listed the approximate share of interviews in each poll that post-dated the debate.

The four national tracking polls as published on Sunday were largely unchanged from their Saturday releases. Mr. Romney maintained a 2-point lead in the Rasmussen Reports tracking poll, but President Obamaís lead held at 2 points in an online poll published by Ipsos and at 3 points in the Gallup tracking poll. In the RAND Corporationís online tracking poll, which lists its results to the decimal place, Mr. Obamaís lead declined incrementally, to 3.9 percentage points from 4.4 on Saturday.

My effort to do that is reflected in the chart below. Iíve compared the most recent reading in each poll to the average result that the poll showed in the period between the Democratic convention and the Denver debate. Iíve also listed the approximate share of interviews in each poll that post-dated the debate.

I smell fear.When Kerry destroyed Bush in the first 2004 debate was their fear among Republicans?

Donger

10-08-2012, 10:57 AM

When Kerry destroyed Bush in the first 2004 debate was their fear among Republicans?

Of John Kerry? No. Then again, Romney is no John Kerry.

qabbaan

10-08-2012, 10:58 AM

When Kerry destroyed Bush in the first 2004 debate was their fear among Republicans?

Keep telling yourself that.

Ace Gunner

10-08-2012, 10:58 AM

bullshit doesn't bounce

BigRedChief

10-08-2012, 11:02 AM

Keep telling yourself that.JFC. what exactly am I telling myself?

qabbaan

10-08-2012, 11:05 AM

JFC. what exactly am I telling myself?

That there is no chance the hare can lose this.

Saul Good

10-08-2012, 11:09 AM

When Kerry destroyed Bush in the first 2004 debate was their fear among Republicans?

There was from this Republican.

BigRedChief

10-08-2012, 11:16 AM

That there is no chance the hare can lose this.Where did I say this?

patteeu

10-08-2012, 12:02 PM

When Kerry destroyed Bush in the first 2004 debate was their fear among Republicans?

Clinging to a lifeline made of pure hope, I see.

Can you describe Obama's magnificent robes in detail for those of us who can't see them?

qabbaan

10-08-2012, 12:07 PM

Clinging to a lifeline made of pure hope, I see.

Can you describe Obama's magnificent robes in detail for those of us who can't see them?

ROFL

Calcountry

10-08-2012, 12:28 PM

Says who? you?Says the same people who loved the polls 2 weeks ago.

Calcountry

10-08-2012, 12:29 PM

We Ask America is a joke. They are brand-new in 2012 so no history, they have a pro-GOP house effect that exceeds even Rasmussen, and their performance in predicting the Scott Walker recall election was pathetic.

Rasmussen used to be good, but they were utterly pathetic in 2010, primarily because they don't poll cell phones and many more people have cut their land line cord today than 4 years ago. Cell phone-only users tend to skew Democrat. Rasmussen is, and will continue to be, a pathetic joke until they start calling cell phones.

This isn't uninformed opinion, the fact that these two pollsters suck is based on data.Your accusations on their methodology, what is this based on?

Calcountry

10-08-2012, 12:31 PM

Prediction markets say Obama is still the favorite right now, but he lost serious ground. He went from being an 80% favorite to being only a 60%. One more performance like that, and the race will be 50/50.in trade is an irish company, necessitating off shore deposits in order to play. No way I am sending cash off shore, otherwise, I would be getting as much of that action as I could.

Calcountry

10-08-2012, 12:33 PM

Clinging to a lifeline made of pure hope, I see.

Can you describe Obama's magnificent robes in detail for those of us who can't see them?"Hope is not an plan"

Direckshun

10-08-2012, 01:05 PM

I defer to Nate Silver at all times.

That said, it looks like the race closed from around 5 points to around a point and a half.

That's really, really good for Romney.

His electoral math, however, is still damning. The north is still out of reach. Virginia is still polling well for Obama, as is Colorado. I live in Missouri and Obama is still raining ads on us here.

Florida, however, has flipped to Romney's column, and Ohio's back to being a toss up.

We'll see if this is Romney's nadir or if this can be sustained.

Donger

10-08-2012, 01:11 PM

I defer to Nate Silver at all times.

That said, it looks like the race closed from around 5 points to around a point and a half.

That's really, really good for Romney.

His electoral math, however, is still damning. The north is still out of reach. Virginia is still polling well for Obama, as is Colorado. I live in Missouri and Obama is still raining ads on us here.

Florida, however, has flipped to Romney's column, and Ohio's back to being a toss up.

We'll see if this is Romney's nadir or if this can be sustained.

How do you explain the differences between the 538 electoral map and Realclearpolitics'? It seems like Nate's electoral map needs updating.

Direckshun

10-08-2012, 02:17 PM

RCP has Obama winning the electoral college.

Donger

10-08-2012, 02:33 PM

RCP has Obama winning the electoral college.

I don't see that. Right now, they have it as 251 Obama and 181 Romney. 270 are needed for victory.

Like I said, 538 seems unwilling to update states leaning, such as Florida, to Romney's likely column.

BigRedChief

10-08-2012, 02:40 PM

I don't see that. Right now, they have it as 251 Obama and 181 Romney. 270 are needed for victory.

Like I said, 538 seems unwilling to update states leaning, such as Florida, to Romney's likely column.Romney should have won Florida easily. But, Romney is not going to win Florida. Picking Ryan guaranteed that outcome. Obama is going to flood the airwaves with medicare ads.

Donger

10-08-2012, 02:45 PM

Romney should have won Florida easily. But, Romney is not going to win Florida. Picking Ryan guaranteed that outcome. Obama is going to flood the airwaves with medicare ads.

Noted for future reference.

That doesn't explain why 538 still has Florida leaning Obama and counting it to Obama's electoral tally (and a few other critical states) when Florida is now tied.

If Silver is a number-cruncher, he seems to be ignoring this fact for some reason.

BigRedChief

10-08-2012, 02:53 PM

Noted for future reference.

That doesn't explain why 538 still has Florida leaning Obama and counting it to Obama's electoral tally (and a few other critical states) when Florida is now tied.

If Silver is a number-cruncher, he seems to be ignoring this fact for some reason.Who know's? I don't think Nate publishes every ingredient of what the sauce is made of. But, isn't Silver's #'s are partly based on future events. Everyone knows that Obama is saving money to blanket Florida with medicare ads before the election.

Donger

10-08-2012, 02:59 PM

Who know's? I don't think Nate publishes every ingredient of what the sauce is made of. But, isn't Silver's #'s are partly based on future events. Everyone knows that Obama is saving money to blanket Florida with medicare ads before the election.

I wonder if Silver is being given Obama's internal polling information again?

Anyway, it seems silly that he apparently doesn't take into consideration the toss-up category. Florida, Colorado, Iowa, Ohio, NC and Virginia sure don't seem like they should be given to either candidate at this point.

Donger

10-08-2012, 03:00 PM

Whoa. The Pew poll is interesting.

vailpass

10-08-2012, 03:03 PM

Debate #2 should make this all the more interesting.
Don't make obama Angry Black Man. You wouldn't like him when he's Angry Black Man.

RINGLEADER

10-08-2012, 03:03 PM

I defer to Nate Silver at all times.

That said, it looks like the race closed from around 5 points to around a point and a half.

That's really, really good for Romney.

His electoral math, however, is still damning. The north is still out of reach. Virginia is still polling well for Obama, as is Colorado. I live in Missouri and Obama is still raining ads on us here.

Florida, however, has flipped to Romney's column, and Ohio's back to being a toss up.

We'll see if this is Romney's nadir or if this can be sustained.

We'll see if the 12-point swing from Pew, combined with the 5-point swings in Rasmussen and Gallup, has any impact on Nate Silver's analysis. I'm sure Obama's chances will probably go from 83% to 87% or some other such nonsense.

RINGLEADER

10-08-2012, 03:08 PM

Whoa. The Pew poll is interesting.

They're a GOP firm...

They're track record is horrible...

They're running out of excuses...

This is the byproduct of basing your campaign on making the other guy a monster. When he shows up without horns the only place you have to go is "he's a liar." All Romney has to do is shame Obama to his face for this tactic at the next debate and ask why he has to resort to name-calling. That 60-second exchange will wipe out $250,000,000 in negative advertising and inoculate against future attacks. I said this election would be won on the first debate and it's looking to be the case if you want to believe the polls and increase in enthusiasm and ballot requests coming from the GOP side of the ledger.

qabbaan

10-08-2012, 03:38 PM

We'll see if the 12-point swing from Pew, combined with the 5-point swings in Rasmussen and Gallup, has any impact on Nate Silver's analysis. I'm sure Obama's chances will probably go from 83% to 87% or some other such nonsense.

There is a lot here that doesn't make any sense, if you believed the pre-debate polls. Among others:

Supposedly, debates don't matter very much in modern times. So why the huge swing?

Supposedly, the number of undecideds was minuscule. So why the huge swing?

Our resident experts said Ohio was out of play and Florida was nearly so. So why the huge swing?

But most interesting to me: the turnout models being used by pollsters which heavily favored Democrats were said to be solid projections of turnout for Obama, that is to say, that we should expect turnout around 2008 levels for democrats.

So why the huge swing? Did they change the turnout models? Was Romney always ahead, but the debate created a few more percentage points, enough to bleed into even rosy turnout models?

What's the truth here?

BigRedChief

10-08-2012, 03:42 PM

They're a GOP firm...

They're track record is horrible...

They're running out of excuses...

This is the byproduct of basing your campaign on making the other guy a monster. When he shows up without horns the only place you have to go is "he's a liar." All Romney has to do is shame Obama to his face for this tactic at the next debate and ask why he has to resort to name-calling. That 60-second exchange will wipe out $250,000,000 in negative advertising and inoculate against future attacks. I said this election would be won on the first debate and it's looking to be the case if you want to believe the polls and increase in enthusiasm and ballot requests coming from the GOP side of the ledger.I thought almost all polls were skewed/biased to the Dems?

Which is it? Are these new polls skewed to the Dems now? Are they no longer skewed/biased? Or are they still skewed/biased and Romney is on track to win a landslide election when you unskew the polls?

qabbaan

10-08-2012, 03:50 PM

Another thing - what of this Battleground poll which has Romney up by 16 points among independent voters? How could Obama win without them?

How can we reconcile this with the previous conventional wisdom that the election was safe for Obama, when he only won independent voters 52-48 against McCain?

jjjayb

10-08-2012, 04:32 PM

I thought almost all polls were skewed/biased to the Dems?

Which is it? Are these new polls skewed to the Dems now? Are they no longer skewed/biased? Or are they still skewed/biased and Romney is on track to win a landslide election when you unskew the polls?

;)

Reagan/Carter all over again.

banyon

10-08-2012, 05:29 PM

This is the byproduct of basing your campaign on making the other guy a monster. When he shows up without horns the only place you have to go is "he's a liar." All Romney has to do is shame Obama to his face for this tactic at the next debate and ask why he has to resort to name-calling. That 60-second exchange will wipe out $250,000,000 in negative advertising and inoculate against future attacks. I said this election would be won on the first debate and it's looking to be the case if you want to believe the polls and increase in enthusiasm and ballot requests coming from the GOP side of the ledger.

Which, by the way, Romney is not doing. Pay attention to the debates, see how many areas Romney makes obama look like a boy standing next to a man. Economy first and foremost.

Calcountry

10-08-2012, 06:20 PM

The economy son, pay attentionLMAO

Obama is an abject failure.

Economic Policy(Marxism) Failed, but economic historians weren't very high on his advisory panel.

Foreign policy(Lead from behind) Failed. The mid-east is in flames. We are weaker than ever. Iran probably will get nukes. Chavez got reelected. Gasoline is at record highs(this is a crossover with economy but is tied to foreign policy.

He is a complete failure as president of the United States of America.

vailpass

10-08-2012, 06:21 PM

LMAO

Obama is an abject failure.

Economic Policy(Marxism) Failed, but economic historians weren't very high on his advisory panel.

Foreign policy(Lead from behind) Failed. The mid-east is in flames. We are weaker than ever. Iran probably will get nukes. Chavez got reelected. Gasoline is at record highs(this is a crossover with economy but is tied to foreign policy.

He is a complete failure as president of the United States of America.

As evidenced by the fact you can't get his supporters to present any of his achievements as reasons to vote for him again. Ask any obama supporter why they are going to vote for him.

Which, by the way, Romney is not doing. Pay attention to the debates, see how many areas Romney makes obama look like a boy standing next to a man. Economy first and foremost.He compared him to his 5 sons.

I wonder how that made Obama feel, knowing that his dad didn't love him enough to be there to spank his ass the way Romney did in that debate.

Calcountry

10-08-2012, 06:22 PM

As evidenced by the fact you can't get his supporters to present any of his achievements as reasons to vote for him again. Ask any obama supporter why they are going to vote for him.Well, there is the fact that he is black.

R8RFAN

10-08-2012, 06:23 PM

LMAO

Obama is an abject failure.

Economic Policy(Marxism) Failed, but economic historians weren't very high on his advisory panel.

Foreign policy(Lead from behind) Failed. The mid-east is in flames. We are weaker than ever. Iran probably will get nukes. Chavez got reelected. Gasoline is at record highs(this is a crossover with economy but is tied to foreign policy.

He is a complete failure as president of the United States of America.

Worst President ever
Don't you love how they are ignoring fuel prices? WHEN Bush was Pres, if the price hit 2 bucks a gallon the media went nuts

(Oh BTW I think gas prices in Venezuela is .12 a gallon)

Calcountry

10-08-2012, 06:32 PM

Worst President ever
Don't you love how they are ignoring fuel prices? WHEN Bush was Pres, if the price hit 2 bucks a gallon the media went nuts

(Oh BTW I think gas prices in Venezuela is .12 a gallon)Not to mention the use of US troops deaths for political purposes by the lefties in the media.

This week with George Copperopolis use to end the program with memoriam of the dead soldiers, that died that week. I haven't heard a word about the blue on green deaths that continue to mount.

Nothing. This is Obama's war.

Calcountry

10-08-2012, 06:34 PM

Where is the hue and cry about using our forces in Libya without an act of congress?

Nothing. Then it blew up in their faces. Nice predator drone foreign policy there dudes.

R8RFAN

10-08-2012, 06:34 PM

Not to mention the use of US troops deaths for political purposes by the lefties in the media.

This week with George Copperopolis use to end the program with memoriam of the dead soldiers, that died that week. I haven't heard a word about the blue on greed deaths that continue to mount.

Nothing. This is Obama's war.

He was banging on the "He got us out of Iraq drum" today, Hell Iraq told us to leave basically because they told the USA they would have no immunity to prosecution in Iraq.

HonestChieffan

10-08-2012, 06:38 PM

The Romney Bounce is turning into the Obama thud.

Calcountry

10-08-2012, 06:39 PM

He was banging on the "He got us out of Iraq drum" today, Hell Iraq told us to leave basically because they told the USA they would have no immunity to prosecution in Iraq.Yeah, we go into Iraq, give them a government, spend all that blood and treasure, and we don't even so much as negotiate a freaking base out of them.

a) You must lower tax rates to encourage capital
b) You can increase revenues by decreasing rates (a concept that Obama seems incapable of grasping, despite referencing it everytime he mentions Clinton)
c) You lower the debt by growing the economy while means testing deductions
d) It is insane that we don't drill for the oil that we have
e) It is insane that we say no to a pipeline that instead will go to China
f) We should cut the obvious programs that have no business existing in the first place
g) We should not allow the defense cuts that the Sec/Def says would be "disasterous"
h) Will end the huge power grab that is Obamacare

I could go on, but that's enough for most people...

RINGLEADER

10-08-2012, 07:17 PM

The Pew poll oversamples Republicans IMO, but given the huge advantages that Romney is building up with independents it may not matter...

Which, by the way, Romney is not doing. Pay attention to the debates, see how many areas Romney makes obama look like a boy standing next to a man. Economy first and foremost.

I'm on record many times here stating I'm not an Obama supporter.

banyon

10-08-2012, 10:10 PM

a) You must lower tax rates to encourage capital
b) You can increase revenues by decreasing rates (a concept that Obama seems incapable of grasping, despite referencing it everytime he mentions Clinton)
c) You lower the debt by growing the economy while means testing deductions
d) It is insane that we don't drill for the oil that we have
e) It is insane that we say no to a pipeline that instead will go to China
f) We should cut the obvious programs that have no business existing in the first place
g) We should not allow the defense cuts that the Sec/Def says would be "disasterous"
h) Will end the huge power grab that is Obamacare

I could go on, but that's enough for most people...

So, this is sort of tripling down on the laffer curve which has only worked once (minimally) in our history, along with being nicer to oil companies? That's what we're going to rebuild our economy with?

Comrade Crapski

10-09-2012, 12:02 AM

I'm on record many times here stating I'm not an Obama supporter.

http://www.iaza.com/work/121009C/iaza19494437344900.jpg

patteeu

10-09-2012, 05:38 AM

So, this is sort of tripling down on the laffer curve which has only worked once (minimally) in our history, along with being nicer to oil companies? That's what we're going to rebuild our economy with?

The Laffer curve has been working for the past 30 years. Unfortunately, political realities have forced us to go anti-Laffer for lower income brackets and that won't change under Romney.

HonestChieffan

10-09-2012, 09:18 AM

Daily Kos/SEIU Poll Finds Mitt Romney Leading For The First Time All Year, 49% – 47%…

The Pew poll oversamples Republicans IMO, but given the huge advantages that Romney is building up with independents it may not matter...

Really? Obama was up by 10 last month by Pew Research

RINGLEADER

10-09-2012, 10:14 AM

Really? Obama was up by 10 last month by Pew Research

When they oversampled Dems by 10.

RINGLEADER

10-09-2012, 10:19 AM

Romney up in Ohio +1 (ARG), up in Colorado +4 (ARG), down only 2-3 in Pennsylvania (Susquehanna and Siena), tied in Nevada (Rasmussen).

Combined with the other findings we're witnessing the epic campaign collapse all the Dems predicted a couple weeks ago -- only it is Obama.

I always said the first debate would decide this thing, but I do think Romney and Ryan have to turn in two more A+ performances to seal the deal. I say this because the media will be gnashing their teeth trying to change the "Romney has the momentum" narrative. I doubt the third debate will matter much.

It is funny watching all of the Obama campaign's efforts to paint Romney as a liar and try to mock him with Big Bird references fall flat.

RINGLEADER

10-09-2012, 10:22 AM

BTW, the internals are deadly for Obama. In Ohio, Romney has a 20-point lead among independents. Also in all the ARG polls Romney has clearly "brought home" GOP voters with less than 5% choosing Obama (85%-90% is normal, but his 92%-94% levels of partisan support are extremely high).

RINGLEADER

10-09-2012, 10:24 AM

I'm on record many times here stating I'm not an Obama supporter.

You say Romney doesn't have any ideas and you can't understand why anyone would support him.

You get a list of his ideas and you can't understand why anyone would support him.

LOCOChief

10-09-2012, 10:27 AM

I just have a bad feeling that it's going to take a landslide in Romney's favor to get Obama out. It needs to be crystal clear who the winner is so that nothing can be fudged.

RINGLEADER

10-09-2012, 10:30 AM

I just have a bad feeling that it's going to take a landslide in Romney's favor to get Obama out. It needs to be crystal clear who the winner is so that nothing can be fudged.

There's a long way to go, but I get the sense that the Obama campaign's strategy of making Romney unacceptable only worked to the point that he proved he wasn't the man that Obama said he was.

I don't know how Obama gets that narrative going again absent some big event, which is always possible!

Imagine if they had held the 47% video until the day after the debate. Really stupid of Mother Jones to leak it when they did...

R8RFAN

10-09-2012, 10:37 AM

I just have a bad feeling that it's going to take a landslide in Romney's favor to get Obama out. It needs to be crystal clear who the winner is so that nothing can be fudged.

Well considering Obama starts with 55 electoral votes because of those Nuts and Fruits in California, it is gonna take a major turnout.

LOCOChief

10-09-2012, 10:38 AM

Imagine if they had held the 47% video until the day after the debate. Really stupid of Mother Jones to leak it when they did...

No kidding. Hopefully Romney took that one away from them last week.

LOCOChief

10-09-2012, 10:40 AM

Well considering Obama starts with 55 electoral votes because of those Nuts and Fruits in California, it is gonna take a major turnout.

Even $6 gas and a bankrupt home state can't turn those idiots towards the light.

R8RFAN

10-09-2012, 10:46 AM

Even $6 gas and a bankrupt home state can't turn those idiots towards the light.

I just don't get it... How in the Hell was Reagan ever Governor and the winner of that state both times in the elections?

vailpass

10-09-2012, 11:29 AM

I'm on record many times here stating I'm not an Obama supporter.

Forgive me for characterizing your view. I amend my comment so it is directed at obama supporters only.

vailpass

10-09-2012, 11:32 AM

I just don't get it... How in the Hell was Reagan ever Governor and the winner of that state both times in the elections?

A lot has changed since then, and not for the better. The demographics and policies of California are an ill omen and a flashing warning light for all of America to heed, learn from, and avoid.

RINGLEADER

10-09-2012, 01:55 PM

Romney now leads in the RCP average of polls. I think that is a first.

Since the debate:

Pew: +4
IBD: +2
Gallup: +2
Reuters: Tied
Rasmussen: Tied

Also new state polls showing him way ahead in NC, ahead in OH, ahead in CO, and within the margin of error in MI and PA.

DJ's left nut

10-10-2012, 09:12 AM

I just don't get it... How in the Hell was Reagan ever Governor and the winner of that state both times in the elections?

Rural California and Northern California tend to be decidedly conservative.

SF and SoCal have hijacked the state's politics.

What California needs isn't even a regime change, it's a goddamn military coup. Just put a dictator in charge for a couple of years, have him smack all these whiny idiots upside the head and get that place back on track.

I can't believe that a state with the advantages that California has can be so screwed up. The amount of out-state money that place sucks into it is staggering. The state literally does everything well (geographically speaking) and yet it's going under. They can grow anything, farm anything, product anything and everyone would kill to live there. Yet somehow, some way, the state is a train wreck.

And it's built on the back of wildly liberal politics.

But yeah - lets do that. Lets follow the lead of the people like Nancy Pelosi that have run that state into a goddamn mountain despite being given advantages that no other state in the union have.

I hate the electorate so very much...

R8RFAN

10-10-2012, 09:16 AM

Rural California and Northern California tend to be decidedly conservative.

SF and SoCal have hijacked the state's politics.

What California needs isn't even a regime change, it's a goddamn military coup. Just put a dictator in charge for a couple of years, have him smack all these whiny idiots upside the head and get that place back on track.

I can't believe that a state with the advantages that California has can be so screwed up. The amount of out-state money that place sucks into it is staggering. The state literally does everything well (geographically speaking) and yet it's going under. They can grow anything, farm anything, product anything and everyone would kill to live there. Yet somehow, some way, the state is a train wreck.

And it's built on the back of wildly liberal politics.

But yeah - lets do that. Lets follow the lead of the people like Nancy Pelosi that have run that state into a goddamn mountain despite being given advantages that no other state in the union have.

I hate the electorate so very much...

Libs want to raise hell about forcing to show ID when they vote but no one can tell me there is not major voting fraud there with all the illegals.

Chief Faithful

10-10-2012, 10:57 AM

It is not just a bounce there is momentum for Romney. Team Obama is scrabling trying to stop the bleeding. It looks like the disciples are having trouble with their faith in their messiah.

R8RFAN

10-10-2012, 10:59 AM

I think the polls have been skewed from the start...

Donger

10-10-2012, 12:48 PM

Sounds like Obama is going to be much more aggressive at the next debate:

President Barack Obama defended his debate performance last week by saying that he "was just too polite."

The president was asked about the debate on the Tom Joyner Morning Show earlier this morning, according to the Huffington Post.

"Well, two things. I mean, you know, the debate, I think it’s fair to say I was just too polite, because, you know, it’s hard to sometimes just keep on saying and what you’re saying isn’t true," Obama said in response to the question.

"It gets repetitive. But, you know, the good news is, is that’s just the first one. Governor Romney put forward a whole bunch of stuff that either involved him running away from positions that he had taken, or doubling down on things like Medicare vouchers that are going to hurt him long term."

He continued, "And, you know, I think it’s fair to say that we will see a little more activity at the next one."

Saul Good

10-10-2012, 12:56 PM

Sounds like Obama is going to be much more aggressive at the next debate:

President Barack Obama defended his debate performance last week by saying that he "was just too polite."

The president was asked about the debate on the Tom Joyner Morning Show earlier this morning, according to the Huffington Post.

"Well, two things. I mean, you know, the debate, I think itís fair to say I was just too polite, because, you know, itís hard to sometimes just keep on saying and what youíre saying isnít true," Obama said in response to the question.

"It gets repetitive. But, you know, the good news is, is thatís just the first one. Governor Romney put forward a whole bunch of stuff that either involved him running away from positions that he had taken, or doubling down on things like Medicare vouchers that are going to hurt him long term."

He continued, "And, you know, I think itís fair to say that we will see a little more activity at the next one."

This reminds me of when Turner Gill said he "saw something" on the films he watched, and winked as if he had it all under control shortly before losing by 50 again.

qabbaan

10-10-2012, 01:10 PM

If he goes Angry Barack Man, that isn't going to help. His results suck, he is trading on personal like ability with his remaining supporters among people who aren't committed Democrats.

Donger

10-10-2012, 01:13 PM

If he goes Angry Barack Man, that isn't going to help. His results suck, he is trading on personal like ability with his remaining supporters among people who aren't committed Democrats.

Yep, it's going to be fun to watch.

Calcountry

10-10-2012, 01:26 PM

Rural California and Northern California tend to be decidedly conservative.

SF and SoCal have hijacked the state's politics.

What California needs isn't even a regime change, it's a goddamn military coup. Just put a dictator in charge for a couple of years, have him smack all these whiny idiots upside the head and get that place back on track.

I can't believe that a state with the advantages that California has can be so screwed up. The amount of out-state money that place sucks into it is staggering. The state literally does everything well (geographically speaking) and yet it's going under. They can grow anything, farm anything, product anything and everyone would kill to live there. Yet somehow, some way, the state is a train wreck.

And it's built on the back of wildly liberal politics.

But yeah - lets do that. Lets follow the lead of the people like Nancy Pelosi that have run that state into a goddamn mountain despite being given advantages that no other state in the union have.

I hate the electorate so very much...This use to be Reagan country. Astonishing what liberalism can do.

To borrow a famous commercial:

This is your state/California; This is your state on Liberalism/ any questions?

Calcountry

10-10-2012, 01:31 PM

A lot has changed since then, and not for the better. The demographics and policies of California are an ill omen and a flashing warning light for all of America to heed, learn from, and avoid.This.

When Pete Wilson was governor, he supported Prop 187, which would make English the official language of the State of California.

That really pissed off the Mexican contingency, many who are mostly conservative.

Couple that with the the express lane that runs from Tijuana to San Diego, then branches out on the 8, the 15, the 10, the 405, and the 101, and well, the rest is history.

Cave Johnson

10-10-2012, 01:35 PM

This.

When Pete Wilson was governor, he supported Prop 187, which would make English the official language of the State of California.

That really pissed off the Mexican contingency, many who are mostly conservative.

Couple that with the the express lane that runs from Tijuana to San Diego, then branches out on the 8, the 15, the 10, the 405, and the 101, and well, the rest is history.

Someone has no semblance of a clue re Prop 187.

Calcountry

10-10-2012, 01:46 PM

Someone has no semblance of a clue re Prop 187.I kind of forgot the details, but I remember the number. heh.

My bad. Thanks for correcting me.

Anyways, it pissed the Hispanic population off really bad in California.

Calcountry

10-10-2012, 01:47 PM

Someone has no semblance of a clue re Prop 187.California Proposition 187 was on the November 8, 1994 general election ballot (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_1994_ballot_propositions#November_8) in California (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California) as an initiated state statute (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Initiated_state_statute), where it was approved. However, it has never been enforced.<sup id="cite_ref-0" class="reference">[1] (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_187,_Illegal_Aliens_Ineligible_for_Public_Benefits_%281994%29#cite_note-0)</sup> The goal of Proposition 187 was to make illegal aliens ineligible for public benefits. It came in the middle of a deep recession in California and was popular partly because the fiscal estimate from the California Legislative Analyst's Office (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Legislative_Analyst%27s_Office) said that it would save the state about $200 million/year.<sup id="cite_ref-1" class="reference">[2] (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_187,_Illegal_Aliens_Ineligible_for_Public_Benefits_%281994%29#cite_note-1)</sup>
Proposition 187's approval was the first time that any American state passed legislation related to immigration.<sup id="cite_ref-2" class="reference">[3] (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_187,_Illegal_Aliens_Ineligible_for_Public_Benefits_%281994%29#cite_note-2)</sup>
The day after Proposition 187 was approved by the state's voters, several groups filed federal lawsuits against it, including the Mexican-American Legal Defense/Education Fund (MALDEF), the League of Latin American Citizens (LULAC) and the ACLU (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/ACLU).
Three days after Proposition 187 was approved, on November 11, federal district court judge Matthew Byrne issued a temporary injunction against the state of California, forbidding the enforcement of Prop 187. Federal judge Marianna Pfaelzer then issued a permanent injunction, pending a trial. The state of California asked in 1997 for the case to be dismissed and the injunction dropped, on the grounds that federal immigration law had changed in the meantime. The federal court denied the request that the case be dismissed. The state of California never appealed that decision, so the permanent injunction stands, and the case has never proceeded to trial.[ (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_187,_Illegal_Aliens_Ineligible_for_Public_Benefits_%281994%29#cite_note-history-3)

Calcountry

10-10-2012, 01:51 PM

We tried to stop it, but, as those of you who are opposed to health care should know, when you win at the ballot box, the courts will overturn in favor of the statists agenda. They wanted our tax paid services to go to those who had not paid into the system, and therefore they got it, voter be damned.

They want gay marriage, and they will have it, voter be damned.

They want universal health care, with the federal government regulating every facet of your eating habits and what kind of health care you may receive, they will have it, voter be damned.

Calcountry

10-10-2012, 01:52 PM

This is why many of us say "We want our country back".

We feel as if we already live in a foreign country.

Coming to a neighborhood near you soon.

Mr. Plow

10-10-2012, 05:49 PM

This reminds me of when Turner Gill said he "saw something" on the films he watched, and winked as if he had it all under control shortly before losing by 50 again.

Well, you know, Turner Gill, you know, was an idiot, you know. Thankfully, you know, he is no longer, you know, the coach at KU.

:D

BigRedChief

10-10-2012, 06:05 PM

If he goes Angry Barack Man, that isn't going to help. His results suck, he is trading on personal like ability with his remaining supporters among people who aren't committed Democrats.You think he and his staff don't know he cant go all anger and venom?

mlyonsd

10-10-2012, 06:10 PM

You think he and his staff don't know he cant go all anger and venom?I'm guessing he'll at least look Romney in the eye this time instead of his own shoes.

BigRedChief

10-10-2012, 06:12 PM

I'm guessing he'll at least look Romney in the eye this time instead of his own shoes.Has there ever been a worse debate performance for a sitting president? He has nowhere to go but up.

Saul Good

10-10-2012, 06:14 PM

Well, you know, Turner Gill, you know, was an idiot, you know. Thankfully, you know, he is no longer, you know, the coach at KU.

:D

Hopefully the country doesn't vote to extend Turner Obama's contract by four more years.

mlyonsd

10-10-2012, 06:15 PM

Has there ever been a worse debate performance for a sitting president? He has nowhere to go but up.According to Gallup no so I'd say you're correct.

RINGLEADER

10-10-2012, 07:04 PM

According to Gallup no so I'd say you're correct.

It's interesting because now Romney is in the same place Obama was in -- he has a chance to deliver a knock-down (if not knock-out) punch to a guy who's against the ropes. A lot of it will depend on how well Romney answers the 47% attack -- most of the other stuff they went over last time and people clearly approved.

But it will be fun to watch!

RINGLEADER

10-10-2012, 07:05 PM

I'm guessing he'll at least look Romney in the eye this time instead of his own shoes.

I think it's pretty clear that Obama started believing his own BS. I'm not sure if Romney believes his yet... ;)

BigRedChief

10-10-2012, 07:32 PM

I think it's pretty clear that Obama started believing his own BS. I'm not sure if Romney believes his yet... ;)Surely you conservatives understand that Romney will govern from the middle. He will do whatever is popular. He will raise your taxes as part of a larger deal.

R8RFAN

10-10-2012, 07:36 PM

Surely you conservatives understand that Romney will govern from the middle. He will do whatever is popular. He will raise your taxes as part of a larger deal.

At this point nobody can be worse than Obama

mnchiefsguy

10-10-2012, 07:42 PM

The next debate is the town hall format, right? I think the outcome on that will depend greatly on what kinds of questions the audience asks, and how well the candidates connect with said audience and the tv viewers. Obama did very well against McCain in the town hall format as I recall, so it should be interesting.

AustinChief

10-10-2012, 08:44 PM

Surely you conservatives understand that Romney will govern from the middle. He will do whatever is popular. He will raise your taxes as part of a larger deal.

Sounds alot like Clinton.. and we know what a disaster that was!

BigRedChief

10-10-2012, 08:56 PM

Sounds alot like Clinton.. and we know what a disaster that was!hey I'm not sweating a Romney election. We survived the George W era, we will survive a Romeny era.

RINGLEADER

10-10-2012, 09:06 PM

Surely you conservatives understand that Romney will govern from the middle. He will do whatever is popular. He will raise your taxes as part of a larger deal.

I'm fine with it, provided:

1) He gets rid of Obamacare
2) He simplifies the tax code (even if it means more taxes for me through capped deductions)
3) He won't try to fundamentally transform the United States of America

RINGLEADER

10-10-2012, 09:09 PM

The next debate is the town hall format, right? I think the outcome on that will depend greatly on what kinds of questions the audience asks, and how well the candidates connect with said audience and the tv viewers. Obama did very well against McCain in the town hall format as I recall, so it should be interesting.

Yep.

This is where Romney is going to need specifics ready because if the moderator says "do you all want specifics" and they all say "yep" and Romney (or Obama) come back with pablum it will look bad.

On the other hand, someone gets up and challenges the president over being unemployed or complains about gas prices and that would be tough for the prez.

Like I said, should be fun to watch!

patteeu

10-10-2012, 09:57 PM

Surely you conservatives understand that Romney will govern from the middle. He will do whatever is popular. He will raise your taxes as part of a larger deal.

So you're suggesting that Romney will be able to make some kind of a deal where Obama couldn't? It will be refreshing to have someone who isn't trying to divide us in the WH again.

patteeu

10-10-2012, 09:58 PM

I'm fine with it, provided:

1) He gets rid of Obamacare
2) He simplifies the tax code (even if it means more taxes for me through capped deductions)
3) He won't try to fundamentally transform the United States of America

Same.

HonestChieffan

10-11-2012, 09:31 AM

Surely you conservatives understand that Romney will govern from the middle. He will do whatever is popular. He will raise your taxes as part of a larger deal.

Not sure if this is a serious post. You dont actually believe this is a single issue race do you? And do you think republicans are hooked to a no tax increase? If we are going to control debt and deficits tax increases(revenue) has to happen tied to spending reductions.

Governing from the middle is how the system works. Obama/Reid/pelosi have demonstrated the failure of ignoring that fact. We need people who have the ability to get things done. The senate under Reid and with no leadership from Obama has stopped the process.

I think we all know what we are getting with Romney. No one knew with Obama. And we still have no clue what he plans to do to fix his mess other than 4 more years of debt, unemployment and disasterous foreign policy

jiveturkey

10-11-2012, 09:39 AM

Hold on a sec; tax increases are going to be OK if Romney is elected???

Didn't the House shoot down a 10 (cuts) to 1 (tax increase) deficient reduction plan because it included tax increases?

HolyHandgernade

10-11-2012, 09:45 AM

And do you think republicans are hooked to a no tax increase?

Obviously not familiar with the Norquist Pledge.

patteeu

10-11-2012, 09:52 AM

Hold on a sec; tax increases are going to be OK if Romney is elected???

Didn't the House shoot down a 10 (cuts) to 1 (tax increase) deficient reduction plan because it included tax increases?

Are you talking about a tax rate increase or a tax revenue increase?

patteeu

10-11-2012, 09:56 AM

Obviously not familiar with the Norquist Pledge.

Norquist isn't opposed to increased government revenues which will be a natural result of increased economic growth.

jiveturkey

10-11-2012, 09:56 AM

Are you talking about a tax rate increase or a tax revenue increase?My wallet doesn't see a difference if more money is exiting.

Saul Good

10-11-2012, 09:57 AM

My wallet doesn't see a difference if more money is exiting.

If you go from unemployed to employed, you're paying more taxes, and your wallet is better off.

jiveturkey

10-11-2012, 09:59 AM

If you go from unemployed to employed, you're paying more taxes, and your wallet is better off.So the plan is hopeful in nature?

Cut tax rates and hope more people get back to work.

What is the global economy continues to hold back our growth? Couldn't that lead to increases in the deficit?

patteeu

10-11-2012, 10:00 AM

My wallet doesn't see a difference if more money is exiting.

Why would more money exit your wallet?

jiveturkey

10-11-2012, 10:02 AM

And do you think republicans are hooked to a no tax increase? If we are going to control debt and deficits tax increases(revenue) has to happen tied to spending reductions.

This is what I'm basing my argument on.

patteeu

10-11-2012, 10:02 AM

So the plan is hopeful in nature?

Cut tax rates and hope more people get back to work.

What is the global economy continues to hold back our growth? Couldn't that lead to increases in the deficit?

The plan is relative in nature. If the global environment holds back our growth, it won't be held back as much if we have a lower-rate, broader-based tax system.

Saul Good

10-11-2012, 10:02 AM

So the plan is hopeful in nature?

Cut tax rates and hope more people get back to work.

What is the global economy continues to hold back our growth? Couldn't that lead to increases in the deficit?

Hopeful in nature? WTF does that even mean?

jiveturkey

10-11-2012, 10:10 AM

Hopeful in nature? WTF does that even mean?

It just doesn't sound like a strong plan for deficit reduction.

Similar to Obama hoping that a stimulus package would keep unemployment below 8%.

DJ's left nut

10-11-2012, 11:35 AM

Surely you conservatives understand that Romney will govern from the middle. He will do whatever is popular. He will raise your taxes as part of a larger deal.

Honest to God - I'm fine with that.

There needs to be some governance from the middle right now. Yeah, we probably need a few tax increases here and there. Yeah, we need a TON of spending cuts as well - some of those have to be in defense spending.

Neither side of the aisle has any business getting everything it wants right now. The country is in shit shape largely because both sides have refused to concede anything but a total surrender.

Ultimately Obama's done as a leader - absolutely done. He has no credibility with the Rs because of his attempts to railroad and completely dismiss them when he first took office. If anything is going to be done to build a consensus and create an actual solution to the problem, its not going to be with Obama in office.

Romney, OTOH, I think can build something with the Ds. I still can't see why he's so hated by the left apart from the R after his name. He's the moderate candidate you fellas have been screaming for since Reagan.

jiveturkey

10-11-2012, 11:42 AM

Honest to God - I'm fine with that.

There needs to be some governance from the middle right now. Yeah, we probably need a few tax increases here and there. Yeah, we need a TON of spending cuts as well - some of those have to be in defense spending.

Neither side of the aisle has any business getting everything it wants right now. The country is in shit shape largely because both sides have refused to concede anything but a total surrender.

Ultimately Obama's done as a leader - absolutely done. He has no credibility with the Rs because of his attempts to railroad and completely dismiss them when he first took office. If anything is going to be done to build a consensus and create an actual solution to the problem, its not going to be with Obama in office.

Romney, OTOH, I think can build something with the Ds. I still can't see why he's so hated by the left apart from the R after his name. He's the moderate candidate you fellas have been screaming for since Reagan.

I pretty much agree with everything you just said. He's going to get a lot more done just by being the new guy.

I just hope that he can get the right things done.

You're also another one that mentioned tax increases. I'm going to be real interested in seeing how the House (more specifically Tea Partiers) would react to any kind of tax increases.

Saul Good

10-11-2012, 11:43 AM

It just doesn't sound like a strong plan for deficit reduction.

Similar to Obama hoping that a stimulus package would keep unemployment below 8%.

Creating a broader, more stable tax base while eliminating loopholes that overcomplicate the tax code and favor those who can afford the best accountants/lawyers doesn't sound like a good plan for deficit reduction? I guess Obama's your guy, then.

jiveturkey

10-11-2012, 12:00 PM

Creating a broader, more stable tax base while eliminating loopholes that overcomplicate the tax code and favor those who can afford the best accountants/lawyers doesn't sound like a good plan for deficit reduction? I guess Obama's your guy, then.
Eliminating loopholes and simplifying the tax code make a great deal of sense.

Creating a broader tax base isn't done by signing a new law though and there are a lot of factors that could hold this part of the plan back. This reduces my confidence in it's ability to close to deficit gap.

But by all means feel free to throw your hands on the air and tell me to vote for the other guy because I'm asking questions. More than one person has advocated raising taxes in this thread. I'm simply pointing out that it hasn't been possible in our current political climate. Others like yourself are suggesting more "revenue", which is a totally different argument. On paper it makes sense. If the global economy shits all over everyone next year then it's not going to work and we'll be back to saying deficits don't matter.

RINGLEADER

10-11-2012, 12:01 PM

Creating a broader, more stable tax base while eliminating loopholes that overcomplicate the tax code and favor those who can afford the best accountants/lawyers doesn't sound like a good plan for deficit reduction? I guess Obama's your guy, then.

Yeah, I don't get why people [present company not necessarily included] don't understand the way this benefits the broader economy while bringing in more revenue from the existing tax base in the interim.

Instead we get the stupid, stupid, stupid $5 trillion argument and talk about how we should grow the economy from the middle out. I'd like to see what would happen to the economy if you tried to grow it from the middle out...

R8RFAN

10-11-2012, 12:06 PM

They need to dump all of the deductions on taxes including mortgage and dependents unless those dependents are disabled

patteeu

10-11-2012, 02:12 PM

Creating a broader tax base isn't done by signing a new law though and there are a lot of factors that could hold this part of the plan back.

It's not?

jiveturkey

10-11-2012, 02:18 PM

It's not?
What in the name of zues' butt hole are we debating here?

a - Are you going to broaden the base by putting more people to work?

b - Or are you going to broaden the base just through simplification and elimination of deductions?

If it's (a) then signing a law that forces every back to work probably isn't in the cars.

If it's (b) then you're talking about raising taxes, which can certainly be done via a couple of well placed signatures.

patteeu

10-11-2012, 02:25 PM

What in the name of zues' butt hole are we debating here?

a - Are you going to broaden the base by putting more people to work?

b - Or are you going to broaden the base just through simplification and elimination of deductions?

If it's (a) then signing a law that forces every back to work probably isn't in the cars.

If it's (b) then you're talking about raising taxes, which can certainly be done via a couple of well placed signatures.

Romney has indicated that he wants to do (b) along with an across-the-board rate cut in order to facilitate (a), so a law change will be required.

Lex Luthor

10-11-2012, 02:53 PM

Romney has indicated that he wants to do (b) along with an across-the-board rate cut in order to facilitate (a), so a law change will be required.
It's pretty much exactly what Reagan did in the 1980s: cut the marginal tax rates and reduce loopholes and deductions in order to broaden the tax base.

But if we do that again we could be stuck with another 25 years of prosperity and unprecedented growth, so we sure as hell don't want to go there. It wouldn't be "fair".

jiveturkey

10-11-2012, 03:07 PM

Romney has indicated that he wants to do (b) along with an across-the-board rate cut in order to facilitate (a), so a law change will be required.
Will this result in people paying more in taxes?

patteeu

10-11-2012, 09:36 PM

Will this result in people paying more in taxes?

Romney said that it will probably result in rich people paying more in taxes, but pledged that the middle class would not.

BigRedChief

10-11-2012, 09:49 PM

They need to dump all of the deductions on taxes including mortgage and dependents unless those dependents are disabledSure raise my taxes $3K a year but fuck raising taxes on the rich one penny?:doh!:

Go for that policy, I think Republicans ought to advocate doing away with the mortgage deduction.

BigRedChief

10-11-2012, 09:51 PM

Romney said that it will probably result in rich people paying more in taxes, but pledged that the middle class would not.yeah and people that believe that BS deserve to have their taxes raised by romney.

patteeu

10-11-2012, 10:07 PM

yeah and people that believe that BS deserve to have their taxes raised by romney.

Says the guy who's been hooked up to the Obama BS IV for the past 5 years.

I can't imagine why we shouldn't believe him and it's even harder for me to imagine that you have some insight into the subject.

RINGLEADER

10-11-2012, 10:44 PM

The whole argument that they want a tax cut for the wealthy at the expense of the middle class is complete BS anyway. Does anyone really think a middle class tax increase is going to happen?

Direckshun

10-11-2012, 10:45 PM

The whole argument that they want a tax cut for the wealthy at the expense of the middle class is complete BS anyway. Does anyone really think a middle class tax increase is going to happen?

I think it's the DNC spin for the tax burden shifting to the middle class.

So it's a dishonest presentation of a true statistic.

Direckshun

10-11-2012, 10:46 PM

Also, screaming it'll raise taxes on the middle class is a tactic to force the Romney campaign to provide specifics.

R8RFAN

10-12-2012, 08:12 AM

Sure raise my taxes $3K a year but **** raising taxes on the rich one penny?:doh!:

Go for that policy, I think Republicans ought to advocate doing away with the mortgage deduction.

Ah hell people would adjust, I remember when you could take a new car off your taxes ... This would not be raising your taxes this would be the gubment not having to subsidize your purchase.